People v. Johnson, 26 N.E.3d 586

Johnson was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault arising from choking the victim and moving her from a sidewalk to a vacant lot and then to a secluded area for sexual assault.
The State argued the asportation was not incidental to the sexual assaults, and the bodily-harm element was proven by choking and resulting pain, with bruising discussed as a possible manifestation.
Johnson raised several trial- and evidentiary-issues, including prosecutorial misconduct, sua sponte rulings, and ineffective assistance of counsel, on appeal.
The trial record showed the victim described the assailant as tall, with the State presenting DNA corroboration on the victim’s intimate areas.
The appellate court affirmed Johnson’s convictions, concluding the evidence supported both the aggravated kidnapping asportation and the bodily-harm element for aggravated criminal sexual assault, and rejected the trial-issue challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of asportation for kidnapping	Johnson contends asportation was incidental to the sexual assaults.	Asportation was not an independent offense; it was incidental.	Asportation supported independent kidnapping conviction.
Bodily harm element in aggravated sexual assault	Bruising and bodily harm were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.	Bodily harm required more than minor indications; bruising not shown.	Bodily harm proven by choking; bruising not required for finding bodily harm.
Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal	Rebuttal asked jurors to empathize with victim and bolster credibility.	Argument mischaracterized and prejudicial; improper closing.	Rebuttal argument held permissible in context; no reversible error.
Judicial sua sponte rulings during closing	Judge sustained defense's improper closing argument; bias risk.	No reversible error; ruling within discretion.	No reversible error; rulings proper and non-prejudicial.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to impeach and to call certain witnesses; prejudiced defense.	Strategic decisions; not objectively unreasonable.	No ineffective-assistance showing; strategy decisions were reasonable.

People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213 (2009) (four-factor test for whether asportation amounts to independent kidnapping)
People v. Jackson, 331 Ill. App. 3d 279 (2002) (asportation can be independent of the offense depending on timing)
People v. McCarter, 2011 IL App (1st) 092864 (2011) (asportation before the separate offense generally supports kidnapping)
People v. Lamkey, 240 Ill. App. 3d 435 (1992) (context on whether asportation increases danger or is inherent)
People v. Lloyd, 277 Ill. App. 3d 154 (1995) (creation of significant danger independent of sexual assault)
People v. Wenkus, 171 Ill. App. 3d 1067 (1988) (bodily harm in non-medical evidence sufficiency examples)
People v. Bishop, 218 Ill. 2d 232 (2006) (definition of bodily harm for aggravated sexual assault)
People v. Lopez, 2012 IL App (1st) 101395 (2012) (assessing credibility and corroboration in close cases)
People v. Gant, 202 Ill. App. 3d 218 (1990) (prosecutor closing-argument impact on prejudice)
People v. Pecoraro, 175 Ill. 2d 294 (1997) (ineffective-assistance framework in Illinois)